Two people have been charged with allegedly sending "menacing" tweets to a feminist campaigner.
John Nimmo, 25, of Moreland Road, South Shields and Isabella Sorley, 23, of Akinside House, Akinside Hill, Newcastle-upon-Tyne will both appear at Westminster Magistrates Court on 7 January, Scotland Yard said.
The two were charged …

Re: So...

Re: Geoff Crammond

That would be fine, e.g. "That was a rather stupid thing to do, I think you may have a little idiot DNA in your blood" would probably be fine whereas "When I find you, I'm going to a**rape you, put a bullet in your head and bury you in a field" may not be looked on quite as favourably, and in all likelihood will have you in the dock shortly after them.

Re: So...

Re: So...

So you think that texting I'm going to rape and kill you 50 times in one our is not menacing? you think that telling a person I'm going to rape and kill you over 50 times in one hour is not worth of the plod to investigate ? Or should ` they wait till she is dead before some action is taken? Some one tells me they are going to rape and kill me 50 times in one hour damn right I want the police involved. I don't want to be the one to figure out if these people are serious or not. I want the cops to arrest them. Seriously if some tweeted you 50 one hour saying that they want to rape and kill you, leave your body in field, you should be worried. If not I wounder about you.

Re: So...

"Some one tells me they are going to rape and kill me 50 times in one hour damn right I want the police involved."

Well, first off, they can only kill you once unless they have a defibrillator and some of that stuff they stab people in the chest with in the last 5 minutes of medical dramas. And as far as the raping goes, well, 50 times in an hour - let's just say that they're probably exaggerating their prowess, if you know what I mean.

Re: So...

"So much for free speech."

Your free speech ends where it harms others. Hurting someone's feelings or offending them is very different to being menacing/threatening. Same would be said about someone shouting bomb in a movie theatre.

The law has been clear about this for a long time, regardless of means. If you threaten someone in person you're committing an offence too.

Remember a time when it was though the web would be a lawless place? Sooner or later people are going to realise that the stuff they do on line has consequences (and the law for things like libel or incitement work just fine on-line, no need for a separate ‘on a mobile device’ bit of paper). Sure, if you’re savvy enough you can make it very difficult but it seems obvious that the people sending the tweets here don’t have that.

One thing that wasn't mentioned in the article is apparently one of the victims only heard about the arrests from the media rather than the police.

Re: Bit sexist really

Let's not forget that feminist scientific research is based on "a feeling". Yes, I do have that from a very senior Canadian university feminist research scientist (or is that "trick cyclist"?), who said it under oath in open court.

Re: Bit sexist really

Re: Bit sexist really

These people aren't in trouble because they're sexist, they're in trouble because they were "menacing". You can be menacing without being sexist, and that will still get you in trouble; you can be sexist without being menacing, and that won't, at least not with the plod.

Re: Bit sexist really

'I think the collective term for men is "barfull".'

Good suggestion. However, in this case the word "basket" could also be used, given that men who send threats to people campaigning for an image of a famous female author to be put on a banknote, should be treated as basket cases. If people make serious threats of violence in any media (or indeed verbally). simply because they disagree with them, prosecution should certainly be considered.

Re: Bit sexist really

@ Michael H.F. Wilkinson

"However, in this case the word "basket" could also be used, given that men who send threats to people campaigning for an image of a famous female author to be put on a banknote, should be treated as basket cases."

What about the women involved in sending threats? What should we call them? Should they be treated differently or exempt from this rant? Man or woman such threatening behaviour should be dealt with by law. And they should be branded the same and labelled the same for the sake of equality

Re: Do you send tweets?

"it would not be in the public interest to prosecute...having particular regard to the young age and personal circumstances of the suspect"

Don't we have youth courts to deal with young offenders? Why do "personal circumstances" allow you to avoid prosecution? Surely they only come into consideration during sentencing? Or were the accused youth's parents rich and/or well connected?

I would be more accepting of the decision if the CPS said there was no point prosecuting because the threat wasn't credible. But it might be little comfort to the victim.

The wrong act... @Phil

The Misuse of Computers Act isn't in play here. It's only the Communications Act 2003, which TFA helpfully linked to. To clarify, this is a verbatim extract of the Met press release:

<quote>“Isabella Sorley, 23, from Newcastle and John Nimmo, 25, from South Shields have both been charged with improper use of a communications network under Section 127 of the Communications Act.

“We have also determined there is insufficient evidence to support a prosecution in respect of one suspect, whom it was alleged also sent offensive messages to Ms Criado-Perez, and have advised the police that no further action should be taken as the high threshold for prosecution has not been met.

“In respect of one other suspect, who allegedly sent offensive messages to Stella Creasy MP, we determined that although there was sufficient evidence that an offence had been committed under Section 127 of the Communications Act, it would not be in the public interest to prosecute, having applied the Director’s guidelines and having particular regard to the young age and personal circumstances of the suspect.

“In relation to the fifth suspect, we have asked the police carry out further investigation before a charging decision can be made.”

@Red Bren

Feminists are irritating

but menacing tweets threatening anyone is unacceptable. I do wonder if anyone will slap her down for her prejudice against men though saying- "stumbled into a nest of men who co-ordinate attacks on women". There are good and bad people as well as good and bad groups. The unfortunate fact of equality is that both parties are as good and evil as the other.

Now it is down to the process of law. Hopefully without any 'ists' perverting the course of justice.

Re: Feminists are irritating

Where does it say anywhere that Caroline Criado-Perez or Stella Creasy are feminists?

And what, exactly, have they done, on the evidence of this article, to irritate you?

Or are you just assuming (not unreasonably) that they are likely to be feminists as they are intelligent campaigning women? And what is wrong with that? Why should that irritate you?

They are simply women just trying to be treated fairly by a male-dominated world.

Some feminists are irritating - like those who make comments like "Men are all closet rapists". Most have more sense, and don't make stupid generalizations. Perhaps you should try avoiding similar stupid generalizations.

Re: Feminists are irritating

Re: Feminists are irritating

@ Martin

"And what, exactly, have they done, on the evidence of this article, to irritate you?"

Referring to a group as a nest of men, especially since she appears to be wrong and there be women involved. But the comment does seem to suggest prejudice that it must be that horrible group (men). However I do get irritated at anyone calling themselves feminists just because feminist is the fight for better rights for women (equal or better than for men) and a complete disregard for equality. Kinda like when a religious person claims they need religion to be 'good'. Funny how the collective group (or nest if you like) demand better treatment for just their group.

"They are simply women just trying to be treated fairly by a male-dominated world."

In which third world country are they? There is still inequality and there is still sexism but from all and both sides, yet in the name of feminism we have acts of sexism and discrimination which are acceptable.

"Some feminists are irritating - like those who make comments like "Men are all closet rapists". Most have more sense, and don't make stupid generalizations. Perhaps you should try avoiding similar stupid generalizations."

I hope you reread that comment. You complain at me generalising (associating themselves under a banner I disagree with) yet generalise that most have more sense than irritating feminists. I cant really answer that but I did find it funny.

Equality should be for all. Equal opportunity, equal to make our choices and not making the situation us and them. That goes far beyond just women. And back to the point that nobody (even feminists) should suffer such threats as she did. Lets hope the law does right

Re: Feminists are irritating

It says LITERALLY IN THE FIRST SENTENCE that Criado-Perez is a "Feminist Campaigner", so it would stand to reason (if you can accomplish that) that she is indeed a feminist.

Basing my opinion on what feminists have done to "irritate me based solely on this article" not a whole hell of a lot. But once again, your prove how asinine you are but wanting to make it just about THIS article. Feminists enjoy shouting down other people, and self victimizing themselves in the face of this so called patriarchy. The simply fact is that many are over privileged white women who really dont have much to complain about. The average feminists does a poor job expounding exactly why she is a feminist when you take away her favorite lines crying about misogyny and so forth. The simple fact is, women have the same rights as men, and can do anything a man can.

Sexism goes both ways, and there is a reason why there are gender stereotypes. Women want to emasculate men, and I for one am proud to be a man. Since I am proud to be a man I am daily told I should be castrated, or killed or some other random threat. It is just the internet, therefore it doesnt bother me, but this is just showing its a two way street.

Criado-Perez is a nobrain fuckwit who hopefully will fade out of the medias attention, because that is her ultimate goal. If she wanted to contribute to the world, maybe she could go help people in Africa or what not.

Sidenote: Thank god I live in the US were we dont have laws like this yet.

Re: Feminists are irritating

I think you'll find its the nest of men comment that got us a little annoyed, particularly when it turned out a female was allegedly involved in the attack on her. Perhaps she shouldn't assume men are always responsible for this stuff.